The 'Doctrine of Indoor Management,' also recognised as the 'Turquand's Rule,' is an old established concept that was identified 150 years ago in the perspective of the 'Doctrine of Constructive Notice.' The Concept of Indoor Management is an exception to the concept of Constructive Notice. The doctrine of Constructive Notice aims to protect the corporation from the outsider, meanwhile the doctrine of Indoor Management aims to protect the outsider from the company.

The doctrine of Indoor Management implies that when individuals perform the business activities in a way that seems to be fully consistent with the company's memorandum and articles of association then the individuals associated with them are not to be disrupted by any discrepancies that may have occurred in the company's internal management.

In other words, the individual entering into a transaction with the organisation only required to satisfy that his proposed transaction was not conflicting with the company's articles and memorandum. He is not required to see the company's internal inconsistencies, and if there are any, the company will be held responsible because the individual acted in good faith and was unaware of the company's internal arrangement.

Origin Of The Doctrine:

The doctrine emerged from the landmark case of Royal British Bank vs. Turquand[1]. In this case, the registered deed of settlement stated explicitly that the director's power to borrow on bond was subject to the company's general meeting resolution. The board loaned money from the bank on a bond carrying the company's seal, which was signed by the secretary as well as the two directors without the power of any resolution. The debt repayment defaulted, and the company was held accountable. In the utter lack of a resolution, the shareholders refused to acknowledge the assertions.

In these scenarios, one might reasonably assume that a third party who is obligated to read the deed would have performed an investigation to verify that the deed's requirements are satisfied. On the other hand, the court held that even if no resolution has been passed by the company in general meeting, a third party was entitled to expect that it had, and the company was bound by the actions of its director.

Turquand was granted the right to sue the company depending on the merits of the bond. He had the right to think that the required resolution had been passed. "Outsiders are obligated to recognise the firm 's external position, but are not obligated to know its internal management," Lord Hatherly observed.

The doctrine has been further authorised and implemented by the House of Lords in Mahony vs. East Holyford Mining Co.[2]. In this case, the company's Articles of Association obligated that the cheque be signed by 2 directors of the company and countersigned by the secretary. It was eventually revealed that neither the directors nor the secretary who signed the cheque had been appropriately designated. The court ruled that the person who receives the cheque is entitled to the money because the appointment of directors is component of the company's internal management and an individual dealing with the company is not needed to inquire about it.

The aforementioned viewpoint is backed by Section 176[3] of the Companies Act of 2013, which asserts that errors in the appointment of the director do not repudiate the actions performed.

The doctrine protects third parties who enter into a contract with the company from any inconsistencies in the company's internal procedures. Because third parties cannot reveal internal inconsistencies in a company, the company will be made accountable for any losses incurred as a result of these inconsistencies.

Basis Of Indoor Management Doctrine:

The principle is founded on the understandable reasons of comfort in business relationships for any parties dealing with a Company. Any person can examine the articles of association and memorandum are public records. Therefore, an outsider is generally expected to understand the company's constitution rather than what may or may not have occurred within the company's internal management.

Exceptions To The Doctrine Of Indoor Management:

The exceptions to the doctrine that have been judicially established, which provide circumstances wherein the advantage of indoor management cannot be claimed by an individual dealing with the company, are mentioned below.

1. Knowledge Of Irregularity

   This principle does not apply to circumstances wherein the party entering into a transaction with a company has constructive or actual notice of the irregularity in relation to the internal management of the company, in such case he/she cannot seek remedy under the doctrine of Indoor Management. This knowledge of irregularity may arise from the fact that the individual with whom you are communicating was a party to the inside process or otherwise. In Morris v. kansren[4], a director himself participated in the meeting that made allotment of shares to him, the director could not defend the allotment of shares on the basis of this principle.
   
   The articles of the company in Howard vs. Patent Ivory Manufacturing Company[5], authorised the directors to loan up to 1,000 pounds. The restriction could be raised with the consent of the General Meeting. The directors took 3,500 pounds from one of the directors who took debentures despite the resolution not being passed. The court ruled that the debentures are only valid for 1000 pounds because the plaintiff (director) is aware of the internal irregularity.
   
   However, in Hely-Hutchinson v. Brayhead[6], it was noted that the simple fact that an individual is a director does not mean that he will be presumed to have knowledge of the irregularities practised by the other directors.
    

2. Negligence On The Part Of The Outsiders (Suspicion Of Irregularity)

   The doctrine is also inapplicable when the case involved the contract are sceptical and thus invite investigation. He cannot rely on this rule if he fails to inquire.
   
   In the case of Anand Bihari Lal vs. Dinshaw & Co.[7], where the plaintiff approved a transfer of company's property from the accountant in the absence of a authority of attorney, the transfer was held void and the plaintiff was not allowed to plead the doctrine of indoor management. The authority being practiced by the accountant was so unusual that the plaintiff was called in to determine whether the accountant had any authority to influence the transfer of the company's property. The Court held that it was the plaintiff's responsibility to check the authority of attorney that the company exercised in favour of the accountant. As a result, the transfer was considered null and void.
    

3. Forgery

   The doctrine applies to inconsistencies that would otherwise affect a legitimate transaction, but it does not apply to forgeries. Transactions involving forgery are null and void from the start (null and void) because it is not a case of absence of free consent; it is a scenario of no approval at all.
   
   This has been established in the Ruben vs. Great Fingall Consolidated[8], The plaintiff was the transferee of a share certificate issued under the defendant company's seal. The certificate was issued by the secretary by forging the signatures of the two directors. The plaintiff's assertion that whether the signatures on the share transfer certificates were authentic or forged was part of internal management was not upheld. It was claimed that the doctrine had never been provided to enable complete forgery.
   
   However, if a company reflects that a forged document is authentic or that the forger has the power to enforce the forged document, it will be barred from rejecting that the forged document is authentic as against the outsider who has relied to his detriment on the representation. A company borrowed money and executed a document in the case of Official Liquidator v. Commissioner of Police[9]. The document was signed by the managing director, and the signatures of the other two directors were forged to comply with the terms of the articles. Under the terms of the agreement, the company was not permitted to escape liability.
    

4. Act Outside The Apparent Authority

   If an act of an officer of a company is one that would ordinarily be outside of authority of such an officer, the plaintiff cannot claim the safeguards of this doctrine. In this kind of cases, the party contracting with such an officer is obligated to investigate whether the authority has been actually delegated or not.
   
   In the case of Kreditbank Cassel v. Schenkers Ltd.[10], the court held that having regard to the position of the branch manager drawing of the bills was not within his implicit authority, and thus the company was not obligated, unless it had granted him actual authority.
    

5. Representation Through Articles

   Articles of association generally contains the power of delegation known as the delegation clause. In The authority of delegation, known as the delegation clause, is commonly found in articles of association. In the case of Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills v. J.K. Jute Mills Co. Ltd.[11], the director of a Company had many managing agents under his control. The company's articles authorised the director to borrow money and delegate this to any or all of his managing agents.
   
   The director took out a loan from the plaintiffs, and the company denied to repay the loan borrowed by the director of the Company. "Even supposing there was no actual resolution authorizing the director to enter into the transaction, the plaintiff could assume that a authority which could have been delegated under the articles must have been actually imparted," it was held. The actual delegation being a matter of internal management, the plaintiff was not obligated to enter that."

Conclusion:
As a response to the doctrine of constructive notice, the doctrine of indoor management developed. It safeguards the third party who acted responsibly; he can assume that there are no internal discrepancies and that all procedural requirements are satisfied. However, he must be familiar with the company's articles and memorandum.

It is investigated whether or not this doctrine operates in a controlled way. Forgery, third-party knowledge of an irregularity, negligence, and other restrictions have been imposed. The principle of indoor management encompasses the actions taken by governmental authorities in the course of their duties. In recent judgements the Indian Courts had broadened the scope of this doctrine but the object is still to protect the third party who acted in good faith and is unaware of internal management of the company.

End-Notes:

1. (1856) 6 E&B 327.
2. [1875] LR 7 HL 869.
3. Companies Act 2013 � 176
4. (1946) 38 Ch. D 156.
5. (1888) 38 Ch. 156.
6. (1968) 1 QB 549 (CA): (1967) 3 All E.R. 98.
7. A.I.R. 1942 Oudh 417.
8. [1906] 1 AC 439.
9. (1968) 38 Comp Cas. 884 (Mad.).
10. (1927) 1 KB 826.
11. AIR 1957 All 311.